When you think of it, what
is so unbelievable in having an energy density (potential) state below the
ground state (the ground potential level?" For decades particle
physics has used the fact that such negative energy states do exist, e.g., the
Dirac sea of negative energy states, usually considered filled with Dirac
electrons. We know you can lift electrons out of there by adding energy;
that has long been established.

Well, classical
electrodynamics already assumes (and widely uses) the fact that one is free to
regauge the potentials (change the energy density of the system) at will,
freely! Electrodynamicists already do that, particularly in applying the
Lorentz symmetrical regauging. There they do it twice, and very carefully
so that the two are 'equal and opposite' so that you get no excess net force
with which you could do free work.

So what mighty commandment
says that one cannot have just a single asymmetrical regauging? Since
Lorentz, everyone already assumes you can have such, anytime you wish. So
what "law" forces us to always seek and use two equal and opposite
regaugings? What fool seeking useful energy from the vacuum potential,
would use TWO self-defeating free energy changes? Obviously, if you wish the
vacuum to GIVE you something for free, you must use only ONE regauging, which
will a priori be asymmetrical. Then you get a free energy-density change
in the local vacuum, and you can certainly get a "potential state"
that is below the ground level potential state. That is just making a
negative potential, and that is just performing a selected asymmetrical
regauging of the system.

Apparently Mills has done
precisely that. The hydrogen atom and its parts do not care what energy
state the local vacuum is in. If you externally regauge that state, and
put it below the normal "ground state" potential level, then
certainly the hydrogen atom and its proton and electron will react and change!

Okay, so we haven't ever
used that before in conventional science. So what! One is only asking
whether or not it is permissible. And the answer is, it's permissible in
spades, and implicitly contained in experimentally established regaugings
already used and known. So it becomes just a matter of finding out
"how to do it and how to do it well". That's where the creative
inventor comes in. Apparently that is just what Mills found out how to
do.

Many closed-minded arch
skeptics seem unaware that the Heaviside-Maxwell equations, prior to arbitrary
symmetrical regauging by first Lorenz and then H.A. Lorentz, do indeed include
open electrodynamic systems far from equilibrium in their vacuum energy exchange.
But these critics seem to have only classical equilibrium thermodynamics in
their minds, with its second law, and of course that does not even apply to
open dissipative systems. Someone should explain to such strident critics why
Prigogine was awarded a Nobel Prize. However, Lorentz's arbitrary
symmetrical regauging gave them just exactly what they wish. It discards
all those permissible overunity Maxwellian systems, and retains only those
which are forcibly in equilibrium with their active environment. Once in
equilibrium, then classical thermodynamics DOES apply, as does that old second
law, and that system will never exceed COP = 1,0.

Interestingly, every power
system our engineers and scientists have ever built, has been designed and
built in accord with the Lorentz-regauged subset of Maxwell-Heaviside
theory. NEVER with the full theory, and NEVER with asymmetrical
self-regauging and thus a violation of the Lorentz condition.

Finally, let us return the
skeptics' own stuff back to them. The classical EM they so staunchly
defend, after Lorentz's arbitrary symmetrical regauging, has simply discarded
that entire vast subset of permissible Maxwellian systems that are open
dissipative systems and therefore permitted to (1) self-organize, (2) self-oscillate
or self-rotate, (3) power themselves and their loads (all the energy is just
received from the active vacuum environment), and (4) exhibit negentropy.
The Lorentz regauged CEM retains only those systems which HAVE BUILT INTO THE
PHYSICAL SYSTEM ITSELF TWO EQUAL AND OPPOSITE ASYMMETRICAL SELF-REGAUGINGS, SO
THAT THE SYSTEMS DELIBERATELY IMPLEMENT TWO "LORENTZ DEMONS" TO
FORCIBLY REGAUGE THEMSELVES SYMMETRICALLY AND THEREFORE FORCIBLY MAINTAIN
THEMSELVES IN EQUILIBRIUM IN THEIR VACUUM EXCHANGE.

In short, all power systems
to date have been built so that they themselves forcibly keelhaul themselves
continuously into equilibrium with their active external environment.
Little wonder that none of them exhibits COP > 1.0!

Now let us turn to the "cherished"
old CEM so loved by the skeptics. CEM is well-known to be riddled with
foundations errors, limiting assumptions, and non sequiturs -- see Wheeler,
Feynman, Bunge, Margenau, Barrett, Cornille, Evans, Vigier, Lehnert, etc.
Since CEM omits the active vacuum exchange, then it is faced squarely with its
totally unresolved problem of the "source charge". Implicitly
CEM considers that the source charge CREATES all that energy it pours out
across the universe in its fields and potentials, in fact altering the entire
vacuum potential of the universe. Well, that violates the most sacrosanct
law of all: energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

So if anyone is going to
point fingers and cry "perpetual motion nuts", let him point the
first finger at himself. At least we overunity researchers know we must
have open dissipative systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium. But in
our wildest nightmares, we could never dream of the vast array of perpetual
motion machines already assumed by classical CEM and its elimination of the
vacuum energy exchange.

One can in fact show that
every electrical load ever powered, has always been powered by energy extracted
from the vacuum, NOT by the energy we input to the shaft of a generator or the
chemical energy in a battery. We have adequately addressed that in full
elsewhere.

In case the critic thinks
the "scalar" potential is a scalar entity, he should be introduced to
Whittaker 1903. For nearly a century it has been rigorously shown that
the "scalar" potential is not a scalar entity at all, but is a
harmonic set of bidirectional EM longitudinal wavepairs. It is composed
of a vast set of multiple wave energy flows, in both directions (radially out
from the source charge, and radially back into it). We can also replace
fields and waves with two scalar potential functions, since Whittaker in 1904
showed that any EM field or wave -- any whatsoever -- is just two such dynamic
scalar potentials with dynamics functions imposed. So everything in the
classical EM text anyway is comprised of sets of bidirectional EM longitudinal
wavepairs, with imposed dynamics. Everything is comprised of dynamic sets
of internal longitudinal EM energy flows. A whirlpool in a river may
appear completely static, but inside it is highly dynamic, with water
constantly flowing through it. So is a "static" potential or
field.

So the electrodynamics that
the skeptics are so certain of, already implicitly describes every charge in
the universe as a PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE OF THE WORST KIND, CREATING ENERGY
RIGHT OUT OF NOTHING.

Even worse, as a residue of
the old material ether assumed by Maxwell (and still in the equations; nary an
equation was ever changed after the material ether concept was falsified), CEM
then "defines" a potential as its own reaction cross section with a
unit point static charge, and "defines" a field as its own reaction
with a unit point static charge. Well, that is a gross non sequitur
because it totally confuses the cause (the EM entity prior to interaction) as
the effect (the small EM entity diverged after interaction). In fact, not
a single CEM textbook or paper in the Western world shows the form in which an
EM wave exists in space, prior to interaction. All illustrations are of
the E-H effect wave in matter after interaction, not the Et-Ht impulse wave
that exists in spacetime prior to interaction.

What a way to run a
railroad!

When the arch skeptics
explain how the source charge produces those fields and potentials and their
energy, WITHOUT interaction with the vacuum and WITHOUT broken symmetry in that
interaction (which two things have been known and experimentally proven in
particle physics for more than four decades), then one should consider
listening to them, AND NOT BEFORE. When they correct the
"definitions" of field and potential, and use the field and potential
themselves rather than the reaction cross sections of each of them at a point,
then one can believe they may understand EM energy flow. But not till
then.